lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 19:44:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/5] rxrpc: Miscellaneous fixes

On Fri,  3 May 2024 16:07:38 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Here some miscellaneous fixes for AF_RXRPC:
> 
>  (1) Fix the congestion control algorithm to start cwnd at 4 and to not cut
>      ssthresh when the peer cuts its rwind size.
> 
>  (2) Only transmit a single ACK for all the DATA packets glued together
>      into a jumbo packet to reduce the number of ACKs being generated.
> 
>  (3) Clean up the generation of flags in the protocol header when creating
>      a packet for transmission.  This means we don't carry the old
>      REQUEST-ACK bit around from previous transmissions, will make it
>      easier to fix the MORE-PACKETS flag and make it easier to do jumbo
>      packet assembly in future.
> 
>  (4) Fix how the MORE-PACKETS flag is driven.  We shouldn't be setting it
>      in sendmsg() as the packet is then queued and the bit is left in that
>      state, no matter how long it takes us to transmit the packet - and
>      will still be in that state if the packet is retransmitted.
> 
>  (5) Request an ACK on an impending transmission stall due to the app layer
>      not feeding us new data fast enough.  If we don't request an ACK, we
>      may have to hold on to the packet buffers for a significant amount of
>      time until the receiver gets bored and sends us an ACK anyway.

Looks like these got marked as Rejected in patchwork.
I think either because lore is confused and attaches an exchange with
DaveM from 2022 to them (?) or because I mentioned to DaveM that I'm
not sure these are fixes. So let me ask - on a scale of 1 to 10, how
convinced are you that these should go to Linus this week rather than
being categorized as general improvements and go during the merge
window (without the Fixes tags)?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ